NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY NATIONAL OFFICE WAKA 50 Victoria Street Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141 New Zealand 64 4 894 5400 64 4 894 6100 18 July 2016 Amelia Wade Reporter New Zealand Herald Amelia.Wade@nzherald.co.nz Dear Amelia Request made under the Official Information Act 1982 Thank you for your email of 23 June 2016 requesting under the Official Information Act 1982: a copy of the paper to the NZ Transport Agency Board on further investigations for a rapid transit network connecting Auckland city to Mangere and the airport area. Please find attached as Appendix 1 a copy of the relevant Board paper (Paper 16/06/1029), which was considered at the 10June 2016, NZ Transport Agency Board meeting. Please note that the decisions made by the Transport Agency Board at the 10June 2016 meeting will not become final until the minutes of that meeting are confirmed and ratified at the Board meeting on 12 August 2016. Once those minutes have been confirmed and ratified we will make them available on our website at meeting?minutes [f you would like to discuss this reply with the Transport Agency, please contact Clare Sinnott, Acting National Manager Governance and Sector Outcomes, by email to clare.sinnott@nzta.qovt.nz or by phone on 04 894 6168. Yours sincerely H. Jenny Board Secretary and Group Manager Strategy, Governance and Performance For Chief Executive TRANSPORT AGENCY WAKA KOTAHI BOARD PAPER AGENDA NO 5.3 Paper no: 16/06/1029 Meeting date: 10 June 2016-4. . Prepared by: Chris Gasser}; Mailing Investment Manager Pete/r Casey, Reg?, ,nal Manager Auckland and Northland and Manager NatiOnal In ?tn-Tent Development Recommended Eiave Br Group Manager, Planning and Investment Boa rd fugrn?tio I cant planning, investment and operational matters Subject. .. A?uckland Rapid Transit to the Airport SUMMARY 2. - PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to recommend that further investigations into options for a rapid transit network from South West Auckland to the airport are rapid transit and light rail transit options (and not heavy rail). To address the projected 30 year growt?Qiuckl Li port?s operations, adjoining airport developments, and associated ble acity public transport service is needed from the Airport to the Central BU?SInejs Districtand the wider region. Auckland Airport has sought to know by June 2016,,what'form a ?ture rapid transit network will take in order to accommodate this in its airp?Ort expansion programme and, if possible, to avoid the higher costs of a heavy rail optior?i? wh'ich "require tunnelling and an underground station to serve the airport term I The rapid transit corrido re 20A (Onehunga to Airport) and State highway ZOB (Airport to Manukau). For reasons of achievability?, cost and scalability, we consider that light rail transit and bus rapid transit are/othe?likely preferred options. We do not consider heavy rail to be a viable option on the group? hat it would: be difficult to achieve and carry significant cost. We therefore propose toxfle out {further Investigations of heavy rail as an option for a future rapid transit the Airport. Auckland Transport will make the same recommendation to its Board in Jun 5. The priority and timing/staging of options for rapid transit networks will b{c'onsidered as part of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. (0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6. That the New Zealand Transport Agency Board'ag?r?ees th; her investigations for a rapid transit network from the Airport along State highway 20A '"nehunga to Airport) or State highway 208 (Airport to Manukau) should Delimited to light rail transit or bus rapid transit options (and not heavy rail). BACKGROUND 7. The projected growth of Auckland Airpo??ill result in significant development over the next 30 years. Passenger numbers are set tog-row from 14.5 million currently to 40 million by 2040. The development of precinct will result in the creation of 27,000 fulltime jobs. The Airport compan'y?ihas?emb edon an airport expansion programme and has asked Auckland Transportato clarify 2016 what provision they should make for any future rapid transit network?in th?e? ort expansion plans. The that arose from the South Western Airport Multi Modal Corridor Project prepared in 20 oncluded that investment in high capacity public transport services will beneeded as? art Ofan investment strategy, in combination with State highway and local transport ents. 10. For the public transport component, the 2011 Strategy concluded that heaCy 4 II options would be expensive compared to a package incorporating bus servuces operatingmainly on the existing State highway network. However the latter optionkli?Sleely be effective in the long run. It therefore recommended the "public .tigg?port corridor that has the flexibility to accommodate the progressive development of attractNe, high capacity public transport services in future across a range of op ns Inclu i" avy rail. State highway improvements include upgrades Stat hI hway 20A and SHZOB corridors serving the Airport. The SH20A to Airport prolect Will improve capacity by grade-separating the Kirkbride intersection. This is part of the AUCkland accelerated package announced by the Prime Minister in 2013. A companion paper addresses aj-proposal to widen parts of this corridor to allow for a future rapid ansit network (Board paper 16/06/1031 refers). The link from Manukau to the Airport via State highway 208) has been identified as a high priority, and upgrades to this rrid will be the subject of a report to you in August 2016. HEAVY RAIL op ION 13. The 2011 work identifi??dfa heavy rail connection along State highway 208 connecting into the main trunk line Aw challenges in navigating State highway 20 and its interchanges an" "en onh?eb?ting in close proximity to the Manukau Branch line and Electric Multiple yaw connection is likely to require a significant land take, and engineering is esr?'la 0 horizontal and vertical gradients are very problematic. In addition,-thevolumerreguency requirement for heavy rail means it is not scalable. Finally, heavy ra? come? a significantly greater cost than for bus rapid transit or light rail transit. 14. 15. BUS AND LIGHT RAIL 16. Work by Auckland Transport following the Sub-regional Strategy has not been-able to demonstrate value for money from investing in a heavy rail? option by 2046.3The latest advice from Auckland Transport, comparing various rapid transit modes, signalsa heavy rail line along State highway 20A could cost as much as $2.4 billion th a? benefitjcost ratio of 0.6. The heavy rail alignment is also significantly differe It in theWAirport precinct when compared to other rapid transit options. It requires tunnelling._aand an underground station to serve the airport terminal. The different alignmentsihaveamade the intent of the Sub-regional Strategy (to progressively develop up to heavy rail) prb.lematic for the Airport company as they now have to hold options for two land holding (one for a 100% at-surface option, bus or light rail; a \Vco?mbi-ned at-surface and underground option for heavy rail). This has promptwathe Airppr?c?ompany to request clarity on the corridor, as this impacts their development plan?? TIONS The Auckland Transpo ?rk has Id led that both light rapid transit and bus rapid transit offer similar transpoifylaenefits "within the 30 year planning horizon as heavy rail, but at a significantly lowerlevel of investment. The difference between light rail transit and bus rapid transit corridors Won?t impact immediate planning and development issues faced by the Airport company, al?lo'wing more time to consider optimal value for money between these two modes. On the State highway 20A"?corridor (Airport to Onehunga), bus rapid transit or light rail transit are also thex-preiqed options for investigation. is progressing work to develop a bus rapid transit option to the same level of detail as they ha?Ve already developed for light and heavy rail options. This will allow a value 5 CONCLUSION AND NEXT 19. 20. 21. 22. .A for money comparison between bus and light rail options, and will be submitted for consideration as part of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. has advised that their indicative cost for a light rail option is $1.1115?billion ith a benefit cost ratio of 1.72). They are still work to develop a cost estim rTa busgn. Based on the evidence to date that a heavy rail option to?the Airport would present poor value for money, and that better value-for money options (bus rapid transit or light rail transit) are still available we recommend ?th?atuheavy railgis not included in further work to investigate options for a future rapid transit net 11; from the'f?Airport. Board on, this matter in June, and will recommend that Auckland Transport will also brieft heavy rail is discarded as ant?optiOn. This will not prejudice any future decisth by the Transport Agency on whether (or not) to proceed with light rail tor?:bu?s rapid transit. The priority and timing/staging of options for rapid transit networks (including?anynetwork from the Airport) will be considered as part of the Auckland Transp "ig?nme Pr ct. If you agree, ll ommunr this decision to Auckland Transport, Auckland Council, and the Airport ,cornpan in coming weeks. ATTACHMENTS 23. There are two attachments: Attachment 1: Reasons for reco en a ion Attachment 2: Location map ATTACHMENT 1: REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION The 2011 Sub-regional Strategy arising from the South Western Airport MultiMOdal Corridor Project identified the need for high speed and high capacity public transport ,s?er?v'i?ce from Auckland airport to the Central Business District. The Strategy also identified the need for a progressi- forgpublictransport, and suggested that in the short term shoulder-running buses would bethe likely As capacity Of the system constrains effectiveness of the service, we wou look to mo a higher capacity Option of busway, light rail or heavy rail. Auckland Airport is seeking confirmation by June 2016-?abOV?U-?t which rapid transit options will be further investigated, so that these can beaccommo ted?in its immediate Airport expansion programme. Auckland Transport estimates tha a eavy r@:ine' along State highway 20A could cost as much as $2.4 billion with a benefit cost atio of kland Transport has identified that both light rapid transit and bus rapid transit wo ?ld offerSimilartransport benefits within the 30 year planning horizon as heavy rail, but at a level of investment. We therefore recommend that heavy "rail is not included in further work to investigate options for a future rapid transit network froW-?Airport. It'll- .